and von Mises was Austrian. Still he has his greatest following in the US. Which in turn could have had too much influence on someone in France.
He has a great following in the US because they are culturally predisposed to agree with his teachings. That was your implication when you used the word "brainwash", and my response was that I'm French, implying I'm not culturally formated to agree with Austrian economics, and yet I conclude that anarcho-socialism is senseless.
I meant that in the context that most socio-economic theories, like the "anarcho"-"capitalistic", have never been tried in practice. In Spain some were, and worked well.
My comment about anarcho-socialism was at a fundamental level. The concept is contradictory. You are moving the topic to a factual demonstration like here:
First, when general assemblies were held, the results were recommendations, not coercive. There was no executive branch or the like.
Second, there were independent "individualists" who lived rather self-sufficiently on the land and essentially bartered with the collectives. They were a minority though, humans usually seem to voluntarily choose to be part of a larger collective.
See, you may call this anarcho-socialism but it isn't. This is plain anarchism. It doesn't matter how the guidelines are emitted nor who emits them, individuals are at a liberty to apply them or not. As long as they don't apply it, then socialism isn't effective. The point is, for resources to be spread evenly, it implies those who produce more have to give to those who produce less. If they can choose to stop the hand outs, then socialism isn't effective, this is just an act of charity in an anarchy. If they can't opt out, then the hand outs are compulsory and socialism is indeed in place, because its guidelines being enforced are now functional as rules. Charity is voluntary, socialism is compulsory. Charity != socialism.
The "individualists" you are mentioning are proof of this. Socialism is fundamentally opposed to private property so it will either attempt to assimilate these individuals or wipe them out.
Fourth, what is a collective after all. A voluntary group that shares resources and risk
There are many definitions of collectives depending on how deep you're willing to delve into human interaction mechanics. The one you're giving is a rather high level definition that is the result of a lot of meaningful societal choices. I will settle with a lower level definition for now: A collective is a group of individuals who interact with each other according the same guidelines.
